> put the ? in front of the questionable portion to indicate that only that portion is questionable.
That's OK for me, but maybe we should exclude the possibility to put question marks on EACH side of an hyphen or a digit group. Thus, my aim is to exclude constructs like
as well as to exclude
> The scale example is a good explanation of precision. But the leap to dates is hard to grasp.
What about the time explanation instead? Some people are able to estimate the time of the day according to the "place" of the sun in the sky. (Let's avoid a discussion about heliocentrism vs. geocentrism in this context). They could say: "It's a quarter to nine now". Someone with a working electronic equipment could say: "It's 08:46:13.346 now". etc.
> I'm sorry, I know this is going against the grain, but I still don't see the use case for defining century so precisely.
Let's take into account the "history" of 8601. Without P's (or Q's or A's or R's and / or "xx", "uu" or such), there was a "need" for centuries. Now, we can express both periods as well as accuracy and precision, which is more general and makes the need for a definition of centuries less obvious. I consider that the only place we need to word "century" is when
explaining that: "To express centuries, use a combination of periods as well as accuracy and precision as explaind in chapter NNN", thus avoiding any "two-digits" expression. This would be useful for 17th century painters etc. too.
> There's already way too much confusion between precision and accuracy!
> How about "Q" as the first available letter after "P"?
Or "R" as the second letter in the word "precision". As formerly explained, I would appreciate to avoid "P", "A" or any other letter that may be used in hexadecimal number strings.